US Govt is the Arm of the NWO: Plans for future Total Disarmament (except for UN Peace Force and loc

The United States undertook bilateral negotiations with the communist Soviet Union in 1961 which lead to a "Joint Statement of Agreed Principles for
Disarmament Negitiations" which was circulated to all UN Members in Sept of 1961. According to UN Document A/4879, 20 Sept 1961, the relevant parts
were that member States would only have non-nuclear armaments, establishments, etc to maintain internal order and that the States shall support and
provide manpower for a UN Peace Force. Later in the fall of 1961 the United States submitted its own proposal for "General and Complete Disarmament"
to the UN Assembly. In it were provisions for three stages of disarmament.
Stage 1: States (nations) shall develop arrangements for the establishment of a UN Peace Force.
Stage 2: States shall further develop the peacekeeping function of the United Nations U.N.) and establish a United Nations Peace Force and
progressively strengthen it with the purpose (in Stage 3) of deterring any threat or use of force.
State 3: Progressive, controlled disarmament would proceed to the point where no State would have the military power to challenge the United Nations
Peace Force. The final phase of the disarmament program would be directed toward the attainment of a world in which:
(a) States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they
would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N. Peace Force.
(b) The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.
* (c) The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those
required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.*
(d) The peacekeeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all States under such arrangements
sufficiently far-reaching to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.

As excerpted from the Dept of State Bulletin, 16 October 1961.
Much of the information above came from the book, International Military Forces: The Question of Peackeeping in an Armed and Disarming World, by
Lincoln P. Bloomfield.

Well yes we need a military force. There will always be someone who wants to over through those in charge. And what if we arent alone in the
universe, and they dont like us. I'd hate for us (the human race) to be completely defenseless. There will always be some kind of rogue nation or
element that doesnt want to be controlled.

Having all nations ("States") disarmed except for the maintenance of internal order (ie local law enforcement and civil unrest) and having all nations
subjugated by the authority of the United Nations means the obvious loss of national sovereignty and the establishment of a real global government.
The statement on the total destruction of all other armaments and weapons (implying those in civilian hands also) is self evident and means the "total
destruction" of the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In other words. all firearms in the hands of civilians of Member States will be collected
and destroyed. Everything coming out of the U.N. lately (ie, Arms Trade Treaty) is to set this up for the not to distant future it seems.

Originally posted by HamrHeed
Eventually, at this pace we will need a world entity (governing body) to deal with intergalactic matters. So who votes for the UN to be that
entity?
I don't. Or do we even get a say? Lol

Having a unified global force to fight off invading aliens was Ronald Reagan's fantasy (well one of them...he was pretty kinky I understand

). But
you are right....where do we get to exercise our vote on international matters? It is a rhetorical question.....answer: we wont have a
vote.

That would be very naive to assume that a world government would be democratic. IF SO, a progression to such a body could be argued to be the natural
order of things. BUT I am assuming it would not be and that would counter the natural rights of man (ie, "to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness"). Let me ask you this....did the US Department of State have a mandate from the Legislative Branch (Congress) of the United States when
it presented its General Disarmament Proposal to the UN over 50 years ago? We are talking long term planning here and it appears to be in the
acceleration of plans stage to the endgame.

Well yes we need a military force. There will always be someone who wants to over through those in charge. And what if we arent alone in the
universe, and they dont like us. I'd hate for us (the human race) to be completely defenseless. There will always be some kind of rogue nation or
element that doesnt want to be controlled.

Just my opinion, maybe im a sheep

Well, I certainly don't want to be controlled!!!!!! This is a negative trait, how?????? Look, I don't bother anyone who doesn't bother me. It's
time for the control freaks of the planet to F off!!!
O.P.O.G. (One P.O.'d Granny)

It doesn't seem likely that everyone will just take the high road and agree to stop shooting each other. Too much historical baggage. So then, the
logic goes, there should be a peace keeper with superior arms to it's enemies. Currently this responsibility is mostly on the shoulders of the United
States Military (with debatable results).

Should 300 million Americans carry the tax burden of protecting the 7 billion humans of the world. Of course not.

So do we shift this responsibility to a UN type organization. Lower defense spending, maybe a positive effect on the American deficit? Although, USA
is major financier of UN.

But would a UN Military be trustworthy? Probably no less than an American military...

American companies would still be the major contractors, American leaders would still have major influence on policy, and America wouldn't have as
big a target on their back.

A world military, if supported by China, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Russia as well as the western nations may be a quicker path to some level of
demilitarization.

With regard to defending against an alien attack, lets hope there is a galactic version of our hypothetical world military to protect us. And if not,
let's build a giant laser on the moon.

A global UN Peace (read Police) Force would be comprised of military from the various member States. There is a history of UN "Peacekeeping" forces
in the world and it has evolved from being controlled by the US during the Korean Conflict to more of a true International Force (Command And Control)
in the Balkans. The question is how well this would work when the UN Force was the true Global Superpower and what is member states cheated and
either kept nuclear weapons or developed them after a moratorium?

To those coming of age in countries other than America it would be reassuring to have representation in the superpower organization. That could do a
lot to keep young men from political violence. Seeing an international logo on aircraft carriers, tanks, planes etc. would drastically change the
flavor of the world.

China is the key here. For all intents and purposes the western armies are fairly unified already. I'm sure if China agreed to some sort of proposal
a lot of fence nations wouldn't be far behind. If the Arab League nations were a part of a UN military Assad would be gone without risk of anti
Western sentiment.

I think this scenario is inevitable if society remains intact for another 20 years. A few decades without global disaster, and a shift toward a
representative worldwide power structure will have started no doubt. Accompanying the military aspect will be massive economic and political reform.
The situation calls for a 21st century version of America's founding fathers. Without exceptional leaders an organization this powerful will only end
in disaster. The intelligence branch here is a scary thought, as well as R&D hoarding.

The point to make above all others is to decrease hostile attitudes as a deterrent to war, as opposed to creating an unbeatable war machine.
Ultimately a worldwide government should be the result of increased cooperation willingness to exchange ideas. Not the result of the need to contain
war mongering.

ok controlled was a poor choice of words. what i meant was someone who wanted to over throw those in charge or just cause anarchy in general.

Nothing against you, hon...I am just so very very sick and tired of the psychos, control freaks and other nefarious a-holes who seem to overrun the
governments (and other positions of authority) on our planet....
Calling all good guys/gals! Calling all good guys/gals! Run for office, please!

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.